Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.
Statistically Equivalent Level of Safety Modeling
TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE DISCLOSURE
[0001] The
present disclosure relates, in general, to time dependent aircraft reliability
and,
in particular, to a safety methodology for aircraft fleets utilizing
statistically equivalent level of
safety modeling to extend scheduled maintenance intervals for structural
components based upon
measured usage data of aircraft within the aircraft fleet.
1
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
BACKGROUND
[0002] Aircraft fleet operators are typically under tremendous pressure to
operate their
aircraft fleets as efficiently as possible. To achieve desired safety and
reliability requirements,
however, conservative usage assumptions are generally used to determine the
life limits of
various aircraft components. Usage credit has long been proposed as a means to
extend
scheduled maintenance intervals in an effort to reduce maintenance cost. These
usage credits are
typically determined through evaluation of actual aircraft usage of individual
aircraft, which may
have wide variation from the "usage as severe as expected" model. While such
reliability
methods have been used as a means to quantify the safety of individual
aircraft, it has been
acknowledged that much of the overall fleet safety achieved using current
fatigue tolerance
methods is due to the conservative nature of usage assumptions.
[0003] In one model, proposed usage credit is determined based upon
detailed component
reliability assessments that produce an absolute characterization of
reliability or its complement,
unreliability, as a function of service life to determine a life limit that
provides acceptable safety.
Such absolute assessment models, however, are only as good as the assumptions
on the
distributions of strength, loads and usage. In addition, variability in these
factors, especially
loads, is difficult to quantify such that absolute reliability methods, no
matter how sophisticated,
are difficult to validate. Accordingly, a need has arisen for an improved
safety methodology for
extending scheduled maintenance intervals of aircraft. A need has also arisen
for such an
improved safety methodology that allows for its level of impact on fleet
reliability to be
determined.
2
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
SUMMARY
[0004] One of the goals of a safety methodology that includes usage credit
should be to
ensure that a proposed change in component or aircraft airworthiness
limitations preserves fleet
reliability. Past experience has shown that current safe-life fatigue
methodology has provided
acceptable levels of fleet reliability for over 70 years in commercial
rotorcraft operation, so this
experience provides a standard by which other methods can be judged,
regardless of the nature of
assumptions made in the current safe-life fatigue methodology. In the present
disclosure, an
improved safety methodology for extending scheduled maintenance intervals of
aircraft is
provided that allows for its level of impact on fleet reliability to be
determined.
[0005] In a first aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a
statistically equivalent level of
safety modeling method for structural components of aircraft within an
aircraft fleet having (n)
aircraft. The method includes (A) identifying a first aircraft sub-fleet based
upon a first usage
profile and a second aircraft sub-fleet based upon a second usage profile, the
first aircraft sub-
fleet having (m) aircraft and the second aircraft sub-fleet having (n-m)
aircraft; (B) determining a
first reliability value (m) for the first aircraft sub-fleet and a second
reliability value (p2) for the
second aircraft sub-fleet; (C) determining a baseline fleet reliability (pa)
for the aircraft fleet
according to the formula: (pFt) = (P1)111 X (p2)n-"; (D) applying a credit to
the second aircraft sub-
fleet; (E) determining a post-credit reliability value (p2c) for the second
aircraft sub-fleet based
upon the credit; (F) determining a post-credit fleet reliability (pF2) for the
aircraft fleet according
to the formula: (pF2) = (pi)1 x (p? c)n-m; (G) comparing the baseline fleet
reliability (pFi) with the
post-credit fleet reliability (pF2) to identify a change in fleet reliability;
and (H) determining
whether the change in fleet reliability is within a predetermined threshold to
validate the credit
applied to the second aircraft sub-fleet.
3
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
10006] The method may also include basing usage profiles upon measured
usage levels;
using a less extreme usage profile for the second usage profile than the first
usage profile; using
time dependent probability distribution functions, time to failure probability
distribution
functions and/or any probability distribution function of discrete and/or
continuous random
variables including, but not limited to, normal distribution functions,
lognormal distribution
functions and Poisson distribution functions; relating the reliability values
to one or more
structural components of the aircraft of the first and second aircraft sub-
fleets; relating the
reliability values to probability distribution functions based upon strength,
loads and usage of the
aircraft of the first and second aircraft sub-fleets; selecting the credit
from the group consisting
of life limit shifts, life factors and combination thereof and/or applying a
revised credit if the
change in fleet reliability is not within the predetermined threshold then
repeating steps (F) - (HI).
100071 In a second aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a
statistically equivalent level
of safety modeling method for structural components of aircraft within an
aircraft fleet. The
method incudes identifying aircraft sub-fleets within the aircraft fleet based
upon aircraft usage
profiles, each aircraft sub-fleet having a sub-fleet population; determining a
sub-fleet reliability
value for each aircraft sub-fleet; determining a baseline fleet reliability
for the aircraft fleet by
multiplying together the sub-fleet reliability values raised to the sub-fleet
population for each
aircraft sub-fleet; applying at least one credit to at least one aircraft sub-
fleet; determining a post-
credit sub-fleet reliability value for each aircraft sub-fleet based upon the
at least one credit;
determining a post-credit fleet reliability for the aircraft fleet by
multiplying together the post-
credit sub-fleet reliability values raised to the sub-fleet population for
each aircraft sub-fleet;
comparing the baseline fleet reliability with the post-credit fleet
reliability to identify a change in
4
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
fleet reliability; and determining whether the change in fleet reliability is
within a predetermined
threshold to validate the at least one credit.
[0008] In a third aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a
statistically equivalent level
of safety modeling method for structural components of a system within a
system fleet. The
method includes identifying sub-fleets within the fleet based upon usage
profiles; determining a
sub-fleet reliability value for each sub-fleet; determining a baseline fleet
reliability for the fleet
by combining the sub-fleet reliability values on a weighted basis; applying at
least one credit to
at least one sub-fleet; determining a post-credit sub-fleet reliability value
for each sub-fleet based
upon the at least one credit; determining a post-credit fleet reliability for
the fleet by combining
the post-credit sub-fleet reliability values on a weighted basis; comparing
the baseline fleet
reliability with the post-credit fleet reliability to identify a change in
fleet reliability; and
determining whether the change in fleet reliability is within a predetermined
threshold to validate
the at least one credit. The method may also include establishing the weighted
basis based upon
the number of systems in each sub-fleet.
[0009] In a fourth aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a
statistically equivalent level
of safety modeling system for structural components of aircraft within an
aircraft fleet. The
system includes a statistically equivalent level of safety modeling computing
system having logic
stored within a non-transitory computer readable medium, the logic executable
by a processor,
wherein the statistically equivalent level of safety modeling computing system
is configured to
identify a first aircraft sub-fleet based upon a first usage profile and a
second aircraft sub-fleet
based upon a second usage profile, the first aircraft sub-fleet having (m)
aircraft and the second
aircraft sub-fleet having (n-m) aircraft; determine a first reliability value
(1)1) for the first aircraft
sub-fleet and a second reliability value (p2) for the second aircraft sub-
fleet; determine a baseline
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
fleet reliability (pr) for the aircraft fleet according to the formula: (pn) =
(porn x (p2)n; apply a
credit to the second aircraft sub-fleet; determine a post-credit reliability
value (p2c) for the
second aircraft sub-fleet based upon the credit; determine a post-credit fleet
reliability (pF2) for
the aircraft fleet according to the formula: (pF2) = (pi)m x (p2c)n-m; compare
the baseline fleet
reliability (pH) with the post-credit fleet reliability (pF2) to identify a
change in fleet reliability;
and determine whether the change in fleet reliability is within a
predetermined threshold to
validate the credit applied to the second aircraft sub-fleet.
[0010] In a
fifth aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a statistically equivalent
level of
safety modeling system for structural components of aircraft within an
aircraft fleet. The system
includes a statistically equivalent level of safety modeling computing system
having logic stored
within a non-transitory computer readable medium, the logic executable by a
processor, wherein
the statistically equivalent level of safety modeling computing system is
configured to identify
aircraft sub-fleets within the aircraft fleet based upon aircraft usage
profiles, each aircraft sub-
fleet having a sub-fleet population; determine a sub-fleet reliability value
for each aircraft sub-
fleet; determine a baseline fleet reliability for the aircraft fleet by
multiplying together the sub-
fleet reliability values raised to the sub-fleet population for each aircraft
sub-fleet; apply at least
one credit to at least one aircraft sub-fleet; determine a post-credit sub-
fleet reliability value for
each aircraft sub-fleet based upon the at least one credit; determine a post-
credit fleet reliability
for the aircraft fleet by multiplying together the post-credit sub-fleet
reliability values raised to
the sub-fleet population for each aircraft sub-fleet; compare the baseline
fleet reliability with the
post-credit fleet reliability to identify a change in fleet reliability; and
determine whether the
change in fleet reliability is within a predetermined threshold to validate
the at least one credit.
6
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
[0011] In a sixth aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a
statistically equivalent level
of safety modeling system for structural components of aircraft within an
aircraft fleet. The
system includes a statistically equivalent level of safety modeling computing
system having logic
stored within a non-transitory computer readable medium, the logic executable
by a processor,
wherein the statistically equivalent level of safety modeling computing system
is configured to
identify sub-fleets within the fleet based upon usage profiles; determine a
sub-fleet reliability
value for each sub-fleet; determine a baseline fleet reliability for the fleet
by combining the sub-
fleet reliability values on a weighted basis; apply at least one credit to at
least one sub-fleet;
determine a post-credit sub-fleet reliability value for each sub-fleet based
upon the at least one
credit; determine a post-credit fleet reliability for the fleet by combining
the post-credit sub-fleet
reliability values on a weighted basis; compare the baseline fleet reliability
with the post-credit
fleet reliability to identify a change in fleet reliability; and determine
whether the change in fleet
reliability is within a predetermined threshold to validate the at least one
credit.
[0012] In a seventh aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a non-
transitory computer
readable storage medium comprising a set of computer instructions executable
by a processor for
operating a statistically equivalent level of safety modeling system. The
computer instructions
are configured to identify a first aircraft sub-fleet based upon a first usage
profile and a second
aircraft sub-fleet based upon a second usage profile, the first aircraft sub-
fleet having (m) aircraft
and the second aircraft sub-fleet having (n-m) aircraft; determine a first
reliability value (pi) for
the first aircraft sub-fleet and a second reliability value (p2) for the
second aircraft sub-fleet;
determine a baseline fleet reliability (pri) for the aircraft fleet according
to the formula: (pF1) =
(pi)tm x (p2)n"; apply a credit to the second aircraft sub-fleet; determine a
post-credit reliability
value (p2c) for the second aircraft sub-fleet based upon the credit; determine
a post-credit fleet
7
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
reliability (pF2) for the aircraft fleet according to the formula: (pF2) =
(ppm x (p2c)n-m; compare
the baseline fleet reliability (pH) with the post-credit fleet reliability
(pF2) to identify a change in
fleet reliability; and determine whether the change in fleet reliability is
within a predetermined
threshold to validate the credit applied to the second aircraft sub-fleet.
[0013] In an eighth aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a non-
transitory computer
readable storage medium comprising a set of computer instructions executable
by a processor for
operating a statistically equivalent level of safety modeling system. The
computer instructions
are configured to identify aircraft sub-fleets within the aircraft fleet based
upon aircraft usage
profiles, each aircraft sub-fleet having a sub-fleet population; determine a
sub-fleet reliability
value for each aircraft sub-fleet; determine a baseline fleet reliability for
the aircraft fleet by
multiplying together the sub-fleet reliability values raised to the sub-fleet
population for each
aircraft sub-fleet; apply at least one credit to at least one aircraft sub-
fleet; determine a post-
credit sub-fleet reliability value for each aircraft sub-fleet based upon the
at least one credit;
determine a post-credit fleet reliability for the aircraft fleet by
multiplying together the post-
credit sub-fleet reliability values raised to the sub-fleet population for
each aircraft sub-fleet;
compare the baseline fleet reliability with the post-credit fleet reliability
to identify a change in
fleet reliability; and determine whether the change in fleet reliability is
within a predetermined
threshold to validate the at least one credit.
[0014] In a ninth aspect, the present disclosure is directed to a non-
transitory computer
readable storage medium comprising a set of computer instructions executable
by a processor for
operating a statistically equivalent level of safety modeling system. The
computer instructions
arc configured to identify sub-fleets within the fleet based upon usage
profiles; determine a sub-
fleet reliability value for each sub-fleet; determine a baseline fleet
reliability for the fleet by
8
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
combining the sub-fleet reliability values on a weighted basis; apply at least
one credit to at least
one sub-fleet; determine a post-credit sub-fleet reliability value for each
sub-fleet based upon the
at least one credit; determine a post-credit fleet reliability for the fleet
by combining the post-
credit sub-fleet reliability values on a weighted basis; compare the baseline
fleet reliability with
the post-credit fleet reliability to identify a change in fleet reliability;
and determine whether the
change in fleet reliability is within a predetermined threshold to validate
the at least one credit.
9
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0016] For a more complete understanding of the features and advantages of
the present
disclosure, reference is now made to the detailed description along with the
accompanying
figures in which corresponding numerals in the different figures refer to
corresponding parts and
in which:
[0017] Figure 1 is a flow diagram of a statistically equivalent level of
safety modeling
system for components or aircraft within an aircraft fleet in accordance with
embodiments of the
present disclosure;
[0018] Figure 2 is a time to failure probability distribution for
components or aircraft within
an aircraft fleet in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure;
[0019] Figure 3 is a schematic illustration of an aircraft fleet split into
two aircraft sub-fleets
in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure;
[00201 Figures 4A-4B show time to failure probability distributions
relating to components
or aircraft in two aircraft sub-fleets within an aircraft fleet in accordance
with embodiments of
the present disclosure;
[0021] Figures 5-6 arc Credit Hours versus Fleet Unreliability plots
relating to components
or aircraft within an aircraft fleet in accordance with embodiments of the
present disclosure;
[0022] Figure 7 is a flow diagram of a process of statistically equivalent
level of safety
modeling relating to components or aircraft within an aircraft fleet in
accordance with
embodiments of the present disclosure;
[0023] Figure 8 is a Total Flight Flours versus High Altitude Flight Hours
plots relating to
components or aircraft within an aircraft fleet in accordance with embodiments
of the present
disclosure;
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
[0024] Figure 9 is a flow diagram of a process of determining component
reliability for
aircraft sub-fleets within an aircraft fleet in accordance with embodiments of
the present
disclosure;
[0025] Figure 10 is a flow diagram of a process of determining baseline
fleet reliability for
an aircraft fleet in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure;
and
[0026] Figure 11 is a flow diagram of a process of determining post-credit
fleet reliability
for an aircraft fleet in accordance with embodiments of the present
disclosure.
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0027] While the making and using of various embodiments of the present
disclosure are
discussed in detail below, it should be appreciated that the present
disclosure provides many
applicable inventive concepts, which can be embodied in a wide variety of
specific contexts.
The specific embodiments discussed herein are merely illustrative and do not
delimit the scope
of the present disclosure. In the interest of clarity, not all features of an
actual implementation
may be described in the present disclosure. It will of course be appreciated
that in the
development of any such actual embodiment, numerous implementation-specific
decisions must
be made to achieve the developer's specific goals, such as compliance with
system-related and
business-related constraints, which will vary from one implementation to
another. Moreover, it
will be appreciated that such a development effort might be complex and time-
consuming but
would be a routine undertaking for those of ordinary skill in the art having
the benefit of this
disclosure.
[0028] Referring to figure 1 in the drawings, a flow diagram representing
systems and
methods for statistically equivalent level of safety modeling for structural
components of aircraft
within an aircraft fleet is generally designated 10. The systems and methods
described herein
provide a mechanism for extending scheduled maintenance intervals of aircraft
and determining
the level of impact on fleet reliability of such extensions. This is achieved,
in part, by using
current safe-life fatigue methodology 12, which has provided an acceptable
level of fleet
reliability for over 70 years in commercial rotorcraft operation (see 14
C.F.R. 29.571). The
present systems and methods utilize current safe-life fatigue methodology 12
as the standard or
baseline against which the disclosed systems and methods are judged such that
adjustments in
maintenance intervals or credits can be validated. In addition, the present
systems and methods
12
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
leverage current safe-life fatigue methodology 12 using many of the same
assumptions, which
have been proven to yield overall fleet safety.
[0029] Safe-life fatigue methodology 12 utilize a fatigue tolerance
evaluation 14 to analyze
fatigue factors 16 including component strength 18, loads 20 and usage 22
relating to each
principal structural element of an aircraft. The fatigue tolerance evaluation
14 establishes
appropriate inspection intervals and/or retirement time 24 to avoid
catastrophic failure during the
operational life of an aircraft. For example, the fatigue tolerance evaluation
14 of principal
structural elements may include in-flight measurements to determine the
fatigue loads or stresses
during all critical conditions throughout the range of design limitations
using a loading spectra as
severe as those expected in operations; a threat assessment which includes a
determination of the
probable locations, types and sizes of damage, taking into account fatigue,
environmental effects,
intrinsic and discrete flaws, or accidental damage that may occur during
manufacture or
operation; and a determination of the fatigue tolerance characteristics for
the principal structural
elements that supports the inspection and retirement times.
[0030] In the illustrated embodiment, a statistically equivalent level of
safety modeling
computing system 26 is used to identify sub-fleets within an aircraft fleet
that may be candidates
for a credit to extend inspection intervals and/or retirement time of
components or aircraft based
upon usage profiles and to validate the credit based upon the level of change
in the overall fleet
reliability resulting from the credit. Computing system 26 may be implemented
on a general-
purpose computer, a special purpose computer or other machine with memory and
processing
capability. For example, computing system 26 may include one or more memory
storage
modules including, but is not limited to, internal storage memory such as
random access memory
(RAM), non-volatile memory such as read only memory (ROM), removable memory
such as
13
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
magnetic storage memory, optical storage memory including CD and DVD media,
solid-state
storage memory including CompactFlash cards, Memory Sticks, SmartMedia cards,
MultiMediaCards (MMC), Secure Digital (SD) memory or other suitable memory
storage entity.
Computing system 26 may be a microprocessor-based system operable to execute
program code
in the form of machine-executable instructions. In addition, computing system
26 may be
connected to other computer systems via a proprietary encrypted network, a
public encrypted
network, the Internet or other suitable communication network that may include
both wired and
wireless connections. The communication network may be a local area network
(LAN), wide
area network (WAN), the Internet, or any other type of network that couples a
plurality of
computers to enable various modes of communication via network messages using
as suitable
communication technique, such as Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol (TCP/IP),
File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), Internet
Protocol Security
Protocol (IPSec), Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP), Secure Sockets
Layer (SSL)
Protocol or other suitable protocol.
[0031]
Computing system 26 preferably includes a display device configured to display
information including graphical user interfaces. The display device may be
configured in any
suitable form, including, for example, Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD), Light
emitting diode
displays (LED), Cathode Ray Tube Displays (CRT) or any suitable type of
display. Computing
system 26 and/or the display device may also include an audio output device
such as speakers or
an audio port allowing the user to hear audio output. The display device may
also serve as a user
interface device if a touch screen display implementation is used. Other user
interface devices
associated with computing system 26 may include a keyboard and mouse, a
keypad, a touch pad,
a video camera, a microphone and the like to allow a user to interact with
computing system 26,
14
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
programs operating on computing system 26 and other computing systems in
communication
with computing system 26.
10032!
Computing system 26 preferably includes a non-transitory computer readable
storage medium including a set of computer instructions executable by a
processor for
statistically equivalent level of safety modeling. In the illustrated
embodiment, the computer
instructions include a component/aircraft reliability module 28, an equivalent
fleet reliability
module 30 and a credit validation module 32. It is to be understood by those
skilled in the art
that these and other modules executed by statistically equivalent level of
safety modeling
computing system 26 may be implemented in a variety of forms including
hardware, software,
firmware, special purpose processors and combinations thereof
[0033]
Referring to figure 2 in the drawings, therein is depicted a graph
illustrating a
probability distribution relating to the reliability of a component or
aircraft in an aircraft fleet
that is generally designated 40. As
illustrated, the probability distribution is a normal
distribution wherein the number of component failures is time dependent thus,
the probability
distribution is a time dependent probability distribution and more
specifically, a time to failure
probability distribution that may be generated based upon fatigue factors 16
including
component strength 18, loads 20 and usage 22. Even though the illustrated
probability
distribution is a normal distribution, it should be understood by those
skilled in the art that any
probability distribution of discrete and/or continuous random variables
including, but not limited
to, lognormal distributions and Poisson distributions may alternatively be
used. In general,
reliability may be defined as the probability that an item or system will
operate in a satisfactory
manner for a specified period of time when used under a specific set of
conditions including
environmental and operational conditions. In the present disclosure, it will
sometimes be more
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
illustrative to discuss reliability in terms of unreliability, wherein
unreliability is the complement
of reliability and wherein unreliability may be referred to as the probability
of failure. In both
cases, reliability and unreliability are generally a function of time with
reliability decreasing over
time and unreliability increasing over time. As illustrated in figure 2, the
time to failure for a
component is quantified in a probability distribution 42, wherein the
reliability (p) at a given
point in time (t) is the area 44 under probability distribution curve 42 to
the right of timeline 46
and the unreliability (Q) is the area 48 under probability distribution curve
42 to the left of
timeline 46. As can be seen, reliability decreases as timeline 46 move to the
right while
unreliability increases as timeline 46 move to the right, wherein the
relationship between
unreliability (Q) and reliability (p) is determined according to the formula:
[0034] (Q) = 1 - (p).
[0035] It should be noted that for component reliability, two approaches
are commonly
used; namely, actuarial and physical. In actuarial reliability analysis,
component failures are
tracked to build models to predict future failures. In the case of aircraft
structural component
failures, however, actuarial reliability analysis cannot be relied upon, as
actual failures of
structural components would lead to an unacceptable level of safety.
Accordingly, for such
critical components, physical reliability analysis, which relies upon physical
models not failure
data, is used for reliability prediction.
[0036] In reliability analysis of a system, such as an aircraft, the system
is made of multiple
components, such as rotors, rotor drive systems between the engines and rotor
hubs, controls,
fuselage, fixed and movable control surfaces, engine and transmission
mountings, landing gear,
and their related primary attachments. The overall structure of a system plays
a key role in
determining the impact of a component's reliability on the whole of the
system. Two basic
16
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
structures can be used to represent most systems; namely, parallel structures
and series
structures. In a parallel structure, a system is said to be functioning if at
least one of its
components is functioning thus forming a redundant system that continues to
function as long as
one of the parallel components continues to function. In other words, the
reliability of a parallel
system is at least as reliable as its most reliable component. In a series
structure, however, the
system is said to be functioning only if all of its components are
functioning, for example, the
reliability of a chain is most influenced by its weakest link. In other words,
the reliability of a
series structure is at most as reliable as its least reliable component.
[0037] Applying the system reliability model to aircraft, each aircraft can
be considered the
system and each critical aircraft component can be considered a component in
the system.
Likewise, an aircraft fleet can be considered the system and each aircraft can
be considered a
component in the system. For the purposes of structural reliability and
therefore safety of an
aircraft fleet, the series structure is the best-suited system reliability
model as the fleet is only as
reliable as its least reliable aircraft. It is noted that this approach is
consistent with safe-life
fatigue methodology 12 discussed above which assumes reduced strength (mean -
3 sigma),
highest flight loads and usage "as severe as expected in service." In other
words, safe-life
fatigue methodology 12 should generate a component life limit that guarantees
the least reliable
aircraft is still highly reliable and safe. Accordingly, safe-life fatigue
methodology 12 can be
used to establish a baseline fleet reliability and modifications to this model
can be used to
evaluate changes in fleet reliability.
100381 Using the series structure for system reliability of an aircraft
fleet will now be
described with reference to figure 3. The system reliability of a series
structure of independent
components is the product of the reliability of the components. For example,
if three
17
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
components in a series structure have reliability values of 0.99, 0.999, and
0.9999 respectively,
then the system has a reliability of 0.99 x 0.999 x 0.9999 = 0.9889. It should
be noted that the
product of the individual reliabilities is slightly less than the reliability
of the component with the
lowest reliability in the system. If all of the components can be modeled as
having the same
reliability, then the system reliability of the series structure of order n
becomes:
[0039] (Ps) = (Pc)"
[0040] where (Ps) is the system reliability, (pc) is the individual
component reliability and
(n) is the population size or number of components. In the aircraft fleet
reliability example, the
system is the aircraft fleet, the components are individual aircraft and the
population size is the
number of aircraft in the fleet. In the case of a fleet of 100 aircraft with
an aircraft unreliability
of (Qc) = 1 x 10-6 or reliability of (pc) = 0.999999, the fleet reliability
would be:
100411 oo 00
(Ps) = (pc)' = (0.999999)1 = 0.9999,
[0042] which represents a fleet probability of failure or system
unreliability of (Qs) = 1 x
104. In the present analysis, those skilled in the art will recognize that an
aircraft is made of
multiple critical components, which may each have more than one failure mode.
Assuming each
of these critical components is structurally independent from the others, the
components may be
viewed a series structure, wherein any component could affect the entire
aircraft. Accordingly,
the present analysis will discuss aircraft reliability in terms of the portion
of the aircraft
reliability due to a specific component's reliability.
[0043] In the aircraft example presented, all aircraft have been assumed to
have the same
reliability. Usage monitoring, however, has shown that there exists a wide
variation between
"normal" usage and "usage as severe as expected." Based upon these
differences, an aircraft
fleet may be split into multiple sub-fleets based upon usage profiles. For
example, using Health
18
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
and Usage Monitoring System (1IUMS) data, one or more usage profiles can be
identified from
the measured data. As best seen in figure 3, an aircraft fleet 50 having a
fleet population of (n)
aircraft has been split two groups or sub-fleets denoted as sub-fleet (A) and
sub-fleet (B). In sub-
fleet (A) there are (m) aircraft, where (m) < (n), and in sub-fleet (B) there
are (n-m) aircraft.
When multiple sub-fleets are included with a fleet, the fleet reliability is
determined by
combining the sub-fleet reliabilities on a weighted basis. For example, if all
of the aircraft in
sub-fleet (A) have a reliability value of (PA) and all of the aircraft in sub-
fleet (B) have a
reliability value of (pB), the fleet reliability (Pr) would be determined
according to the formula:
[0044] (Pr) = (PA)11 x (pB)"-m
[0045] wherein, the contribution of each sub-fleet to the overall fleet
reliability is quantified
as a function of (1) the reliability associated with the usage profile for
each sub-fleet and (2) the
size of each sub-fleet. Thus, to determine fleet reliability, the reliability
value associated with
each of the sub-fleets must be determined. The systems and methods of
statistically equivalent
level of safety modeling disclosed herein use known and/or assumed
distributions of strength 18,
loads 20 and usage 22, as best seen in figure 1, to generate component time to
failure probability
distribution functions, such as that shown in figure 2, from which reliability
values may be
determined.
[0046] Referring additionally to figure 4A, two graphs are depicted
illustrating probability
distributions relating to sub-fleet (A) and sub-fleet (B), respectively.
For example,
component/aircraft reliability module 28 may be used to generate time to
failure probability
distribution functions using a Monte Carlo simulation, Monte Carlo with
importance sampling,
Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation, First and Second Order Reliability
Methods
(FORM/SORM), convolution methods or other suitable probabilistic technique to
generate
19
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
probability distributions representative of the component time to failure
functions. The upper
graph in figure 4A represents a component time to failure probability
distribution function 60 for
a severe usage profile associated with sub-fleet (A). In the illustrated
embodiment, probability
distribution function 60 is a normal distribution having a mean of 10,000
hours and a standard
deviation of 1,000 hours. Based upon retirement time 24 of safe-life fatigue
methodology 12 or
other suitable fatigue analysis, the location of a life limit timeline 62 has
been determined to be
5,000 hours. As illustrated, the area 64 under probability distribution curve
60 to the right of life
limit timeline 62 represents the reliability of the component at the life
limit of 5,000 hours. The
area 64 can be determined by identifying the location of life limit timeline
62 relative to the
mean of the normal distribution in terms of standard deviations according to
the formula:
[0047] Life Limit = Mean - (x)(standard deviation).
[0048] In this case, the life limit is 5,000 hours, the mean is 10,000 and
the standard
deviation is 1,000 hours. Solving for (x) the formula becomes:
[0049] (x)= (Mean - Life Limit)/(standard deviation) = (10,000 -
5,000)/(1,000) = 5
[0050] In this case, life limit timeline 62 is 5 standard deviations (5
sigma) from the mean
which corresponds to a reliability value (pt) for sub-fleet (A) of 0.999 993,
which can be
represented as (0.953) meaning five (9s) following the decimal point.
[0051] The lower graph in figure 4A represents a component time to failure
probability
distribution function 66 for a normal usage profile associated with sub-fleet
(B). In the
illustrated embodiment, probability distribution function 66 is a normal
distribution having a
mean of 15,000 hours and a standard deviation of 1,500 hours. As illustrated,
the area 68 under
probability distribution curve 66 to the right of life limit timeline 62
represents the reliability of
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
the component at the life limit of 5,000 hours. The area 68 can be determined
according to the
formula:
[0052] (x) = (Mean - Life Limit)/(standard deviation) = (15,000 -
5,000)/(1,500) = 6.667
[0053] In this case, life limit timeline 62 is 6.667 standard deviations
(6.667 sigma) from
the mean which corresponds to a reliability value (pa) for sub-fleet (B) of
0.999 999 999 02 or
(0,9902).
[0054] Using, for example, equivalent fleet reliability module 30, the
baseline fleet
reliability (pF) can be determined for a fleet comprised of sub-fleet (A) with
reliability value (pA)
= (0.953) and a population of 25 aircraft and sub-fleet (B) with reliability
value (pa) = (0.9902)
and a population of 75 aircraft according to the formula:
[0055] (pF) = (pA)'" x = (0.953)25 x (0.9902)75 = 0.999 992 83 or
(0.95283)
[0056] Importantly, this fleet reliability methodology can be used to
compare multiple
scenarios such as the baseline fleet reliability and a post-credit fleet
reliability such that a
proposed usage credit can be evaluated in, for example, credit validation
module 32. As
illustrated in figure 4A, the baseline fleet reliability was generated using
the severe usage profile
of sub-fleet (A) to establish the life limit for both sub-fleet (A) and sub-
fleet (B). As best seen in
figure 413, sub-fleet (A) retains the life limit of 5,000 hours represented by
life limit timeline 62
and thus the reliability value of sub-fleet (A) remains (pA) = 0.999 993 or
(0.953). Sub-fleet (B)
has been given a credit of 1,000 hours based upon having a normal usage
profile and is now
designated sub-fleet (B/C) to indicate the credit. As illustrated, the credit
shifts the life limit to
6,000 hours, represented by the shift between life limit timeline 62 and life
limit timeline 70. As
illustrated, the area 72 under probability distribution curve 66 to the right
of life limit timeline 70
21
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
represents the reliability of the component at the life limit of 6,000 hours.
The area 70 can be
determined according to the formula:
[0057] (x) = (Mean - Life Limit)/(standard deviation) = (15,000 -
6,000)/(1,500) = 6
[0058] In this case, life limit timeline 70 is 6 standard deviations (6
sigma) from the mean
which corresponds to a post-credit reliability value (pBc) for sub-fleet (B)
of 0.999 999 926 or
(0.9726).
[0059] Using, for example, equivalent fleet reliability module 30, the post-
credit fleet
reliability (pFc) can be determined for a fleet comprised of sub-fleet (A)
with reliability value
(PA) = (0.953) and a population of 25 aircraft and sub-fleet (B/C) with
reliability value (NO ¨
(0.9726) and a population of 75 aircraft according to the formula:
[0060] (Prc) = (PA)- x (pBon-- = (0.953)25 x (0.9726)75 = 0.999 992 76 or
(0.95276)
[0061] Using credit validation module 32, for example, it can be seen that
the life limit shift
applied to sub-fleet (B) had a slight impact on the overall fleet reliability;
namely, baseline fleet
reliability (pF) = (0.95283) and post-credit fleet reliability (pFc) =
(0.95276) which is a difference
of (7.399 x 10-8) or (0.000007%). In comparing the baseline fleet reliability
(Pr) to the post-
credit fleet reliability (pFc), it is clear that the change in fleet
reliability is very small. Given the
magnitude of the numbers, however, it is more revealing to compare baseline
fleet unreliability
(QF) with the post-credit fleet unreliability (Qrc) wherein, baseline fleet
unreliability is:
[0062] (Qr.) ¨ (1 - (pr)) = (1- (0.95283)) = (7.16626 x 10-6);
[0063] and post-credit fleet unreliability is:
[0064] (Qrc) = (1 - (Prc)) = (1- (0.95276)) = (7.24026 x 10);
[0065] which is a difference of 7.399x10-8 or (1.0%). In the present
example, the resulting
difference in fleet unreliability is measured against a predetermined
threshold value that is
22
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
selected to yield a statistically equivalent level of fleet safety. If the
resulting difference in fleet
unreliability is within the allowable threshold of change, then the credit
added to sub-fleet (B) for
having a normal usage profile is validated and considered a safe usage credit.
If on the other
hand, the resulting difference in fleet unreliability is not within the
allowable threshold of
change, then the credit added to sub-fleet (B) is not validated and should be
adjusted. In the
present example, if the (1.0%) difference in fleet unreliability is within the
allowable threshold of
change, then the credit of 1,000 hours given to sub-fleet (B) is validated
but, if the (1.0%)
difference in fleet unreliability is outside the allowable threshold of
change, then the credit of
1,000 hours given to sub-fleet (B) is not validated.
[0066] Even though the present example has been based upon splitting an
aircraft fleet into
two aircraft sub-fleets, it should be understood by those skilled in the art
that the systems and
methods of statistically equivalent level of safety modeling disclosed herein
are not limited to
aircraft fleets and arc not limited to having only two sub-fleets. In fact,
the systems and methods
of statistically equivalent level of safety modeling disclosed herein are
beneficial for use relating
to any type of system having structural components subject to fatigue failure,
having
maintenance schedules and/or having life limits. In addition, a fleet or
system may be split into
more than two groups based upon a variety factors such as the usage profiles
in the present
example. Further, each such group may receive a varying grade of credit based
upon the
differences in the factors defining the groups such as differences in the
usage profiles.
[0067] Those skilled in the art will also understand that the use of this
"relative reliability"
approach produces a valid comparison as long as the assumptions used while
generating baseline
and post-credit fleet reliability are applicable. For example, even though
load variability is
sometimes difficult to quantify, if the same assumptions for load variability
are used in both the
23
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
baseline and post-credit fleet reliability cases, then the relative impact of
the usage credit can be
evaluated without concern for the absolute validity of the assumption so long
as load variability
is reasonably independent from usage. In this manner, the load variability
assumptions used in
both the baseline and post-credit fleet reliability cases "cancel out" in the
end result.
10068]
Referring now to figure 5 of the drawings, a graph illustrates the fleet
unreliability
sensitivity to credit given to a sub-fleet. Continuing with the example
presented above, when
sub-fleet (B) is given a credit of 1,000 hours based upon having a normal
usage profile and sub-
fleet (A) is given no credit based upon having a severe usage profile, the
resulting post-credit
fleet unreliability is (QFc) = (7.24026 x 10-6) which is a (1.0%) difference
from the baseline fleet
unreliability (QF) = (7.16626 x 10-6) as indicated by data point 80. Using the
systems and
methods for statistically equivalent level of safety modeling disclosed
herein, additional data
points, trend data and sensitivity information can be generated. For example,
fleet unreliability
sensitivity can be determined by processing a plurality of credit levels as
described above. As
illustrated, if sub-fleet (B) is given a credit of 500 hours instead of 1,000
hours, the resultant
difference between post-credit fleet unreliability and baseline fleet
unreliability is approximately
(0.1%) as indicated by data point 82. Similarly, if sub-fleet (B) is given a
credit of 1500 hours
instead of 1,000 hours, the resultant difference between post-credit fleet
unreliability and
baseline fleet unreliability is approximately (8.5%) as indicated by data
point 84 and if sub-fleet
(B) is given a credit of 2000 hours instead of 1,000 hours, the resultant
difference between post-
credit fleet unreliability and baseline fleet unreliability is approximately
(50%) as indicated by
data point 86. Together, data points 80, 82, 84 and 86 define a trend line 88
that can be used as
an aid in selecting a safe usage credit that is within the predetermined
threshold, thus yielding a
statistically equivalent level of safety in post-credit fleet unreliability
when compared to baseline
24
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
fleet unreliability. Such a trend line is also useful in determining how
sensitive the fleet
unreliability is to changes in the credit value. For example, in a highly
sensitive system, it may
be desirable to select a more conservative credit or to reset the
predetermined threshold.
10069]
Similar methods may be used to test fleet unreliability sensitivity to other
variables.
For example, as best seen in figure 6 of the drawings, a graph illustrates the
fleet unreliability
sensitivity to changes in the population ratio of the sub-fleets. Continuing
with the example
presented above, trend line 88 has been reproduced illustrating the change in
fleet unreliability
based upon changes in the credit given to sub-fleet (B) for a fleet having a
population of 25
aircraft in sub-fleet (A) and 75 aircraft in sub-fleet (B). Using the systems
and methods for
statistically equivalent level of safety modeling disclosed herein, additional
data points, trend
data and sensitivity information can be generated. For example, trend line 90
represents credit
given to sub-fleet (B) in a fleet having a population of 10 aircraft in sub-
feet (A) and 90 aircraft
in sub-fleet (B). Similarly, trend line 92 represents credit given to sub-
fleet (B) in a fleet having
a population of 2 aircraft in sub-feet (A) and 98 aircraft in sub-fleet (B).
As illustrated, as the
population in the sub-fleet receiving credit goes up, the difference between
the baseline fleet
unreliability and the post-credit fleet unreliability also goes up. For
example, as indicated at data
point 80, when sub-fleet (B) is given a credit of 1,000 hours and sub-fleet
(A) is given no credit,
the resulting difference between post-credit fleet unreliability and baseline
fleet unreliability is
(1.0%). As indicated by data point 94, for a 1,000 hour credit given to sub-
fleet (B), when sub-
fleet (A) has 10 aircraft and sub-feet (B) has 90 aircraft, the resultant
difference between post-
credit fleet unreliability and baseline fleet unreliability is approximately
(3%). Likewise, as
indicated by data point 96, for a 1,000 hour credit given to sub-fleet (B),
when sub-fleet (A) has
2 aircraft and sub-fleet (B) has 98 aircraft, the resultant difference between
post-credit fleet
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
unreliability and baseline fleet unreliability is approximately (20%).
Similarly, as indicated by
data point 98, if the threshold of change to yield a statistically equivalent
level of safety in post-
credit fleet unreliability when compared to baseline fleet unreliability is
predetermined to be
(1%), for a fleet having 10 aircraft in sub-fleet (A) and 90 aircraft in sub-
fleet (B), the maximum
safe usage credit is about 750 hours.
100701 Referring now to figure 7 of the drawings, one embodiment of a
process for
statistically equivalent level of safety modeling relating to aircraft
components of aircraft within
an aircraft fleet will now be described. The first step of the process
involves defining usage
profiles as indicated in block 100. Usage profiles may be component dependent,
so a first part of
this portion of the process may involve identifying candidate components. Once
selected, a
review of the baseline fatigue substantiation for the component including, for
example, review of
safe-life fatigue methodology 12, will determine what parameters most
influence the fatigue life.
Once determined, a usage threshold or thresholds must be established which
categorize all
aircraft in the fleet into one and only one usage profile, as indicated in
block 102.
[0071] For example, density altitude may be a parameter that correlates to
fatigue damage to
a selected component resulting in a baseline fatigue retirement life of 10,000
hours. If it is
shown from the baseline fatigue substantiation that there is a significant
difference in fatigue
damage above a certain density altitude threshold, such as significant fatigue
damage above
6,000 feet density altitude, but no fatigue damage below 6,000 feet density
altitude, then this
forms a suitable threshold between usage states. Any aircraft, however, could
spend some time
above and some time below the 6,000 feet threshold on a given flight. To
ensure aircraft can
only be categorized into a single group, the time dimension must be
considered. As best seen in
figure 8, flight time for aircraft at high altitude is represented by the
vertical axis and total flight
26
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
time is represented by the horizontal axis, wherein the high altitude state
corresponds to the
6,000 feet threshold. An aircraft that spends all of its time in high altitude
would be represented
by usage profile line 104 and an aircraft that spends 50% of its time at high
altitude would be
represented by usage profile line 106. Thus, at 10,000 hours of total flight
time, a component
subject to density altitude related fatigue damage at high altitude in an
aircraft having usage
profile 104 would have reached the 10,000 hours life limit of that component
for high altitude
flight. The same component in an aircraft having usage profile 106, however,
would have only
experienced 5,000 hours of high altitude fight time in its 10,000 hours of
total flight time.
Utilizing this information, sub-fleets can be defined that include all
aircraft in the fleet. For
example, a sub-fleet (A) could be defined by the usage profile of spending
between 50% and
100% of fight time at high altitude. Similarly, a sub-fleet (B) could be
defined by the usage
profile of spending between 0% and 50% of flight time at high altitude.
100721
Returning to figure 7, the next step in the process involves the calculation
of the
structural reliability for each identified sub-fleet as indicated in block
108. This step generates
time to failure probability distribution functions for each sub-fleet, as
described above with
reference to figure 4A. Component fatigue substantiation; namely, strength 18,
loads 20 and
usage 22, provide inputs to this process, as best seen in figure 9. The
component strength
variability and loads variability information typically come from the safe-
life fatigue
methodology 12 and usage variability may be estimated. For example, estimating
usage
distribution involves a characterization of actual fleet operations or, in the
case of a new aircraft
design, expected fleet operations based upon data from other operational
aircraft. For an existing
aircraft, I IUMS data recorded from the fleet may be used for this purpose. It
should be noted
that any estimate should take into consideration the frequency of occurrence
spectrum based
27
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
upon information that is applicable to the missions flown by the fleet. Next,
component/aircraft
reliability module 28 may be used to generate time to failure probability
distribution functions
for each sub-fleet, referred to as component reliability in block 110.
[0073]
Referring again to figure 7, the next step in the process involves the
calculation of
the baseline fleet reliability as indicated in block 112. This process may
occur within equivalent
fleet reliability module 30. The component reliability information 110 is now
combined with
fleet usage distribution information 114 (see discussion referencing figure 8)
to establish a fleet
reliability model 116, as best seen in figure 10. The fleet reliability model
116 includes the
population of each sub-fleet by actual count or by percentage as well as the
time to failure
probability distribution functions for each sub-fleet. This information is
used to determine the
reliability value for each sub-fleet in block 118. This involves using the
baseline fatigue
retirement life 24 from the safe-life fatigue methodology 12 in combined with
the time to failure
probability distribution functions of each sub-fleet as described above with
reference to figure
4A. For example, in a fleet of (n) aircraft, (m) aircraft are selected for
inclusion in sub-fleet (A)
based upon spending 50% - 100% of their flight time at high altitude while (n-
m) aircraft are
selected for inclusion in sub-fleet (B) based upon spending 0% - 50% of their
flight time at high
altitude. If a component subject to density altitude related fatigue damage at
high altitude has a
life limit of 10,000 hours, both sub-fleet (A) and sub-fleet (B) are assigned
this life limit. The
component and/or aircraft reliability value for each sub-fleet is now
determined by processing
the life limit information together with the time to failure probability
distribution functions of
each sub-fleet. as described above with reference to figure 4A. The baseline
fleet reliability is
now determined in block 120 by combining the sub-fleet reliability values on a
weighted basis
28
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
such as by multiplying together the sub-fleet reliability values raised to the
sub-fleet population
for each aircraft sub-fleet, as described above with reference to figure 4A.
[0074] The next step in the process of figure 7 is applying a usage credit
to selected sub-
fleets as indicated in block 122. This process involves determining which sub-
fleet or sub-fleets
should receive credit and the type of credit to be applied. For example, in
the previous
discussion, the credit has involved a shift in the life limit, which grants a
singular amount of
credit to all members of a population group, the 1,000 hour credit applied to
sub-fleet (B) as
described above with reference to figure 4B. In addition to shifting the
entire group by a set
amount of credit, another credit options include applying a factor to the
usage of one or more
sub-fleets. For example, a credit factor would be to count every hour as less
than one hour of
"equivalent time." If a factor of 0.8 were determined to be appropriate, then
5,000 hours of
actual usage would equate to 5,000 hours x 0.8 = 4,000 hours of equivalent
usage, which is an
effective credit of 1,000 hours. Once a value for the credit is proposed, a
complete usage
proposal can be stated such as "A credit shift of 1,000 hours is proposed for
all aircraft in sub-
fleet (B)."
[0075] Post-credit fleet reliability can now be determined as indicated in
block 124. This
process may occur within equivalent fleet reliability module 30. The component
reliability
information 110, fleet usage distribution information 114 and fleet
reliability model 116,
previous generated are used again as best seen in figure 11. The fleet
reliability model 116
includes the population of each sub-fleet by actual count or by percentage as
well as the time to
failure probability distribution functions for each sub-fleet. This
information is used to
determine the post-credit reliability value for each sub-fleet in block 128.
This involves using
the baseline fatigue retirement life 24 from the safe-life fatigue methodology
12 in combined
29
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
with the time to failure probability distribution functions of each sub-fleet
that does not receive a
credit as described above with reference to figure 4B. In addition, a credit-
based life limit from
block 126 is used in combined with the time to failure probability
distribution functions of each
sub-fleet receiving a credit as described above with reference to figure 4B.
For example, in a
fleet of (n) aircraft, (m) aircraft are selected for inclusion in sub-fleet
(A) based upon spending
50% - 100% of their flight time at high altitude while (n-m) aircraft are
selected for inclusion in
sub-fleet (B) based upon spending 0% - 50% of their flight time at high
altitude. If a component
subject to density altitude related fatigue damage at high altitude has a life
limit of 10,000 hours,
sub-fleet (A) is assigned this life limit but sub-fleet (B) is given a credit
of 1,000 hours. The
component and/or aircraft post-credit reliability value for each sub-fleet is
now determined by
processing the life limit information together with the time to failure
probability distribution
functions of each sub-fleet, as described above with reference to figure 4B.
The post-credit fleet
reliability is now determined in block 130 by combining the sub-fleet
reliability values on a
weighted basis such as by multiplying together the sub-fleet reliability
values raised to the sub-
fleet population for each aircraft sub-fleet, as described above with
reference to figure 4B.
[0076]
Returning to figure 7, the next step in the process involves comparing the
baseline
fleet reliability with the post-credit fleet reliability as indicated in block
132. This process may
occur within credit validation module 32. Taking the example from figures 4A-
4B, adding the
life limit shift to sub-fleet (13) had a slight impact on the overall fleet
reliability which can be
quantified as the difference between baseline fleet reliability (pF) =
(0.95283) and post-credit
fleet reliability (pFc) = (0.95276) which is (7.399 x 10-8) or (0.000007%).
Making the same
comparison using fleet unreliability yields the difference between baseline
fleet unreliability (QF)
= (7.16626 x 10-6) and post-credit fleet unreliability (QFc) = (7.24026 x 10-
6) is (7.399 x 10-8) or
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
(1.0%). Once the change in overall fleet unreliability has been determined, it
is compared to the
predetermined threshold in decision block 134. Preferably, the predetermined
threshold is
selected such that post-credit fleet reliability and baseline fleet
reliability have a statistically
equivalent level of safety. In the present example, if the (1.0%) difference
in fleet unreliability is
within the predetermined threshold, then the credit of 1,000 hours given to
sub-fleet (B) is
validated and the process is complete. If, however, the (1.0%) difference in
fleet unreliability is
outside the predetermined threshold, then the credit of 1,000 hours given to
sub-fleet (B) is not
validated and a modified credit may be proposed as indicated in block 136. The
process would
return to block 122 enabling the modified credit to be tested in and
potentially validated by the
statistically equivalent level of safety modeling process of the present
disclosure.
[0077] Embodiments of methods, systems and program products of the present
disclosure
have been described herein with reference to drawings. While the drawings
illustrate certain
details of specific embodiments that implement the methods, systems and
program products of
the present disclosure, the drawings should not be construed as imposing on
the disclosure any
limitations that may be present in the drawings. The embodiments described
above contemplate
methods, systems and program products stored on any non-transitory machine-
readable storage
media for accomplishing its operations. The embodiments may be implemented
using an
existing computer processor or by a special purpose computer processor
incorporated for this or
another purpose or by a hardwired system.
[0078] Certain embodiments can include program products comprising non-
transitory
machine-readable storage media for carrying or having machine-executable
instructions or data
structures stored thereon. Such machine-readable media may be any available
media that may be
accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer or other machine
with a processor.
31
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
By way of example, such machine-readable storage media may comprise RAM, ROM,
EPROM,
EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other
magnetic
storage devices, or any other medium which may be used to carry or store
desired program code
in the form of machine-executable instructions or data structures and which
may be accessed by
a general purpose or special purpose computer or other machine with a
processor. Combinations
of the above are also included within the scope of machine-readable media.
Machine-executable
instructions comprise, for example, instructions and data which cause a
general purpose
computer, special purpose computer or special purpose processing machines to
perform a certain
function or group of functions.
[0079] Embodiments of the present disclosure have been described in the
general context of
method steps which may be implemented in one embodiment by a program product
including
machine-executable instructions, such as program code, for example in the form
of program
modules executed by machines in networked environments. Generally, program
modules
include routines, programs, logics, objects, components, data structures, and
the like that perform
particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Machine-
executable instructions,
associated data structures and program modules represent examples of program
code for
executing steps of the methods disclosed herein. The particular sequence of
such executable
instructions or associated data structures represents examples of
corresponding acts for
implementing the functions described in such steps.
[0080] Embodiments of the present disclosure may be practiced in a
networked
environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers having
processors.
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that such network computing
environments may
encompass many types of computers, including personal computers, hand-held
devices, multi-
32
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics,
network PCs,
minicomputers, mainframe computers, and so on. Embodiments of the disclosure
may also be
practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by
local and remote
processing devices that are linked through a communications network including
hardwired links,
wireless links and/or combinations thereof. In a distributed computing
environment, program
modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.
[00811 An exemplary implementation of embodiments of methods, systems and
program
products disclosed herein might include general purpose computing computers in
the form of
computers, including a processing unit, a system memory or database, and a
system bus that
couples various system components including the system memory to the
processing unit. The
database or system memory may include read only memory (ROM) and random access
memory
(RAM). The database may also include a magnetic hard disk drive for reading
from and writing
to a magnetic hard disk, a magnetic disk drive for reading from or writing to
a removable
magnetic disk and an optical disk drive for reading from or writing to a
removable optical disk
such as a CD ROM or other optical media. The drives and their associated
machine-readable
media provide nonvolatile storage of machine-executable instructions, data
structures, program
modules and other data for the computer. User interfaces, as described herein
may include a
computer with monitor, keyboard, a keypad, a mouse, joystick or other input
devices performing
a similar function.
[0082] It should be noted that although the diagrams herein may show a
specific order and
composition of method steps, it is understood that the order of these steps
may differ from what
is depicted. For example, two or more steps may be performed concurrently or
with partial
concurrence. Also, some method steps that are performed as discrete steps may
be combined,
33
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
steps being performed as a combined step may be separated into discrete steps,
the sequence of
certain processes may be reversed or otherwise varied, and the nature or
number of discrete
processes may be altered or varied. The order or sequence of any element or
apparatus may be
varied or substituted according to alternative embodiments. Accordingly, all
such modifications
are intended to be included within the scope of the present disclosure. Such
variations will
depend on the software and hardware systems chosen and on designer choice. It
is understood
that all such variations are within the scope of the present disclosure.
Likewise, software and
web implementations of the present disclosure could be accomplished with
standard
programming techniques using rule based logic and other logic to accomplish
the various
processes.
[0083] The
foregoing description of embodiments of the disclosure has been presented for
purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive
or to limit the
disclosure to the precise form disclosed, and modifications and variations are
possible in light of
the above teachings or may be acquired from practice of the disclosure. The
embodiments were
chosen and described in order to explain the principals of the disclosure and
its practical
application to enable one skilled in the art to utilize the disclosure in
various embodiments and
with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated.
Other substitutions,
modifications, changes and omissions may be made in the design, operating
conditions and
arrangement of the embodiments without departing from the scope of the present
disclosure.
Such modifications and combinations of the illustrative embodiments as well as
other
embodiments will be apparent to persons skilled in the art upon reference to
the description. It
is, therefore, intended that the appended claims encompass any such
modifications or
embodiments.
34
CA 2968229 2019-04-02
